Sprint 2 review: implementation and validation
How to use: the Product Owner runs the review on Wed 2026-10-28. Every rubric bullet must link to evidence in this repository. Rubric weight: 20%.
Date: 2026-10-28. Product Owner: Allie Hodges. Scrum Master: Hina Kramer.
Present: [ ] Leticia Aderhold [ ] Jerad Dunne [ ] Allie Hodges [ ] Hina Kramer [ ] Instructor (if present)
Sprint goal check
- Sprint goal (from planning):
- Met: yes / partially / no. Explain in two sentences:
Rubric review checklist (verbatim from the assignment)
The Sprint 2 review must include:
- A working implementation of the core mining, extraction, similarity, classification, traceability, or visualization method. Evidence:
- Automated tests for important parsing, transformation, matching, or metric functions. Evidence:
- A validation sample, manual annotation protocol, or other evaluation design. Evidence:
- Preliminary results with reproducible figures or tables. Evidence:
- At least one pull request reviewed by a different team member than the author. Evidence (link the PR and its approving review):
- An updated research report containing the background, method, implementation, and preliminary results. Evidence:
- A retrospective that records changes to the research question, method, scope, or interpretation. Evidence:
Sprint 2 acceptance criteria (verbatim)
| Criterion |
Pass / Fail |
Evidence link |
Notes |
| The core implementation runs end to end on the approved sample |
|
|
|
| The method is tested |
|
|
|
| The group can explain why the result should be trusted or where it may fail |
|
|
|
| The preliminary analysis is supported by generated evidence rather than screenshots alone |
|
|
|
Validation status
| Kind |
Primary rater |
Second rater |
Second-rater labels committed (PR #, date) |
Primary labels committed after (PR #, date) |
Cohen's kappa |
| Signals |
jd |
|
|
|
|
| Lineage |
jd |
|
|
|
|
| Drift |
jd |
|
|
|
|
Demo script (12 minutes)
| Step |
Content |
Time |
Presenter |
| 1 |
Restate the question and the method in two sentences |
1 min |
|
| 2 |
Fresh terminal: make test then make pipeline; show CI status |
3 min |
|
| 3 |
One preliminary table and one figure, naming the script that produced each |
3 min |
|
| 4 |
Validation protocol, precision per rule, and inter-rater agreement between the primary and second rater |
2 min |
|
| 5 |
One PR with its cross-member review, the ADR for the main design decision, and the metrics dashboard |
2 min |
|
| 6 |
Where the result may fail and what Sprint 3 will do about it |
1 min |
|
Gemba walk: fresh-clone reproduction record
| Field |
Value |
| Who (a member who did not write the README) and environment |
|
| Date |
|
| Commit SHA |
|
| Steps followed (from README) |
|
| Time to first result (minutes) |
|
| Result matched committed output |
yes / no |
| Problems found (open issues) |
|
Instructor feedback
| Feedback |
Action |
Owner |
Issue # |
|
|
|
|
Velocity and KPIs at review
| Metric |
Sprint 1 |
Sprint 2 |
| Points planned / completed |
|
|
| Issues closed |
|
|
| PRs merged / merged with an approving review from another member |
|
|
| Median PR first-review turnaround (hours) |
|
|
| Median cycle time (days) |
|
|
| Median PR open-to-merge time (hours) |
|
|
| CI pass rate |
|
|
| Rework items |
|
|
| Contribution share per member (min / max) |
|
|
| Test count / coverage |
|
|
Backlog changes agreed at the review
- Added:
- Removed or cancelled:
- Re-estimated: